Resources the issue with providing care for needy

Saturday

May 28, 2011 at 2:00 AM

This is in response to Mr. Robert Kennedy's letter in the May 26 Herald, in which he argues that assistance for the needy should come from "voluntary organizations and local governments," rather than from federal or state government. He also states his faith that, if the funding from higher levels of government goes away, "care from local governments or other voluntary organizations would emerge."

May 27 — To the Editor:

This is in response to Mr. Robert Kennedy's letter in the May 26 Herald, in which he argues that assistance for the needy should come from "voluntary organizations and local governments," rather than from federal or state government. He also states his faith that, if the funding from higher levels of government goes away, "care from local governments or other voluntary organizations would emerge."

The problem with this argument is that, no matter which level of government or voluntary organization is providing the care, it cannot be done without resources. So let's look at the resources that might be available to local governments or voluntary organizations to provide this care.

Local governments all over the state and the country are already severely pressed for cash and have been forced to cut jobs and services, in part because of the costs that have already been shifted to them by federal, state and county governments. It is for this reason — and also because legislators correctly anticipate that planned cuts in state funding for social-service organizations will drive even more people to seek services at local government welfare offices — that the New Hampshire House has proposed, for the first time, placing a cap on the requirement for local governments to provide welfare assistance to residents. Mr. Kennedy believes that local governments will be compassionate enough to provide this assistance even if not compelled to do so, but the problem isn't a lack of compassion; it's a lack of resources.

Local governments have only one way to raise significant additional resources: increasing property taxes. From the taxpayers' viewpoint, this would negate efforts at the state level to avoid raising taxes. And it would do nothing to address Mr. Kennedy's objection to "assistance that is compelled by government command."

The other option Mr. Kennedy proposes for providing care to the needy is "voluntary organizations." If by voluntary organization he means one that has little or no paid staff, then he is vastly underestimating the quality and volume of work currently done by independent not-for-profit organizations with paid staff.

For example, at Families First Health & Support Center, we provided medical and dental care for more than 4,300 uninsured and low-income people in 2010. We receive some help from volunteer physicians and dentists, which we value greatly. But professionals like these could never afford to volunteer enough time to provide a true medical home with consistent care for 4,300 people, as we do. That's why we have our own staff of physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, nurses, medical and dental assistants, hygienists, social workers and other professionals. We also provide parenting classes, home visiting and other family services to almost 2,000 people each year, also using professional staff supplemented by volunteers.

To pay these professionals, Families First relies on diverse revenue sources, including fees for service; federal, state and local governments; and voluntary contributions from foundations, businesses and individuals. We work very hard to solicit these voluntary contributions, which already support one-third of our $4.25 million budget. Families First is fortunate to operate in a generous and affluent community; even so, it is not realistic to think that these voluntary contributions could expand to make up the $300,000 or so in state funding that we are slated to lose under the budget currently being considered in the N.H. Statehouse. The impact will be that access to medical, dental and family support services for vulnerable people in the Seacoast will be reduced.

Mr. Kennedy is not the first to propose that resources adequate to address people's needs will magically emerge at the local, neighborhood, not-for-profit, church or family level after state resources are taken away. Several state legislators have been quoted in these pages recently saying exactly the same thing. It is time to take a good, hard look at this theory and be realistic about the impact these cuts will truly have on the needy in our communities.

Helen B. Taft

Executive director

Families First Health and Support Center

Portsmouth

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
seacoastonline.com ~ 111 New Hampshire Ave., Portsmouth, NH 03801 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service